A recent ruling by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has affirmed that apartment 51 in the case of Malina v. 158 Management LLC must remain rent stabilized. This decision impacts tenants and landlords across New York, as it clarifies the rules surrounding rent stabilization and deregulation.

The court's ruling, issued on October 8, 2026, confirmed that the apartment was not properly deregulated and set the legal rent at $1,092.41. This case highlights the ongoing issues related to rent regulation in New York City, where many tenants are concerned about their rights and protections against rising rents.

Background

The case involves Sula Malina and other plaintiffs who are tenants of apartment 51, and 158 Management LLC, the landlord. The dispute arose when the landlord attempted to deregulate the apartment, claiming it had undergone renovations that justified a rent increase. The tenants challenged this claim, leading to a legal battle over the status of the apartment.

This case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Mary V. Rosado, ruled in favor of the tenants on July 22, 2025. The court granted the tenants' motion for summary judgment, declaring that apartment 51 was rent stabilized and setting the legal rent. The landlord subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the apartment should be deregulated based on their claims of renovations.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the defendants (158 Management LLC) failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of deregulation. The court noted that the landlord did not adequately explain the discrepancies between the leases and the rent registrations with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).

The court ruled, "Defendants failed to explain the conflict between the apartment 51 leases entered into the record and the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) rent registrations for the unit."

The judges on the panel included Justices Manzanet-Daniels, Kennedy, Friedman, Kapnick, and Higgitt. They emphasized that the landlord's failure to provide proper documentation regarding the claimed renovations and the lack of compliance with statutory requirements led to the conclusion that apartment 51 remained rent stabilized.

The court also addressed the landlord's claims of high rent vacancy deregulation, stating that the defendants did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the apartment met the necessary criteria for such deregulation. They pointed out that the absence of required notices and the lack of documentation for renovations indicated improper deregulation.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for tenants and landlords in New York City. It reinforces the importance of proper documentation and compliance with rent stabilization laws. Tenants can feel more secure in their rights, knowing that courts will uphold regulations designed to protect them from unjust rent increases.

The decision also serves as a reminder to landlords about the strict requirements they must meet to deregulate an apartment. The case sets a precedent that emphasizes the necessity of clear evidence and adherence to legal standards when claiming that an apartment has been deregulated due to renovations or other factors.

What's Next

The landlord may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.